Eliminate the play-offs all together and just have the 2 teams with the best records play.

That way none of the other 4 teams would have a chance to win and ruin everything.

Sometimes sarcasm is the best way to make a point.

It's a ridiculous statement, and your answer is spot on. Anyone who says this is essentially arguing that only 2 of 9 teams should qualify for the post-season, which will be comprised of exactly one game.

It's a very poorly thought-out statement, and immediately proves that nothing else that person says should be listened to.

PTBO Dave

It is simple, allow 2 teams to crossover instead of just 1. They are divisions, treat them that way. Stop treating them as conferences.

It's all about winning the division in the regular season. Once playoffs start, the top teams from each division get the bye and home field advantage. Let the other follow into place by points.

It is more important to have the 2 best teams for the Grey Cup instead of East vs West.

We will have different matchups for the playoff and Grey Cup.

The crossover has nothing to do with the uneven number of teams in each division. Look at the 1981 season, Ottawa got into the playoffs with only 5 wins, that is why we have the crossover.

I keep hearing this.

" we need the 2 best teams in the Grey Cup "

There is only 1 way to do that.

Eliminate the play-offs all together and just have the 2 teams with the best records play.

That way none of the other 4 teams would have a chance to win and ruin everything.

Sometimes sarcasm is the best way to make a point.

It does make sense, however, to seed the 2 teams with the best records as 1 and 2, and make the teams who weren't as successful in the regular season have to work harder to prove their meddle in the playoffs. Especially, when the regular season is fully integrated with each team playing 10 games against the West division and 8 games against the East division. Why then give the team with a worse record an easier path than a team with a better record?

Or we could divide the league for both the regular season and the playoffs instead of just for the playoffs.

PTBO Dave

Why then give the team with a worse record an easier path than a team with a better record?

.

Because the two Divisional Champions won their Divisions during the regular season, whereas the other four participants... didn't.

Except the teams from both "divisions" played the same schedule--8 vs East, 10 vs West. In other words, the schedule was not divided, so why should a team with a worse record playing the same schedule get an easier path than a team with a better record playing that same schedule?

For me, simple geography is not enough. Rework the schedule so that it reflects a league with divisions and then I'd have no problem with it.

PTBO Dave

so why should a team with a worse record playing the same schedule get an easier path than a team with a better record playing that same schedule?

.

Because the first team won their division, whereas the second team... didn't.

But the why make a schedule without divisions and then impose arbitrary divisions at the end of the season? Too arbitrary for many fans. Let performance dictate playoffs not random, arbitrary factors such as geography.

Make a schedule based on divisions, where teams play the bulk of their games against their own division, and then you build a logic to seeding based on position within each division. But a completely balanced schedule like the league now uses doesn't do that.

Vermonter

The regular season schedule isn't made without taking divisions into account.

You play every team twice, once at home and once on the road. Then you play a third game against two of the teams within your own division.

Now what they should do instead of the third game against two of the teams within your own division is a second two-game H-A series against your Labour Day opponent, with the caveat that the Alberta twins would each play a third game against BC instead of a fourth game against each other (in order to balance the schedule).

PTBO Dave

The regular season schedule isn't made without taking divisions into account.

You play every team twice, once at home and once on the road. Then you play a third game against two of the teams within your own division.

Now what they should do instead of the third game against two of the teams within your own division is a second two-game H-A series against your Labour Day opponent, with the caveat that the Alberta twins would each play a third game against BC instead of a fourth game against each other (in order to balance the schedule).

The past few seasons, the schedule has been made so each team, regardless of geography, plays 10 games against West division teams and 8 games against East division teams.

I'd prefer to see the league go to 12 games against teams within each division and 6 games against teams outside the division. That's what I'd consider taking the divisions in to account while making the schedule. Heck, even 10 within the division and 8 outside would help justify the playoff seedings, but the 12-6 split would really solidify it (and also justify, IMO, eliminating the crossover).

Vermonter

That would just create a weird imbalance in the crossover games, playing some teams from the other division twice and others only once.

Instead it would be more logical to simply play each team in the opposite Division exactly once.

But then the West Division teams would all have to play each other thrice, with a fourth game against two of the teams. And the East Division teams would have to play each other four times, with a fifth game against one of the teams.

FootbalYouBet

the way it is now allows for fans of teams that would otherwise already be out of the playoffs hopeful that their team can still make it. This is better for fan interest and attendance. I say no change.

Logged

Crush cream soda is oh so good. I think I'll have another

PTBO Dave

the way it is now allows for fans of teams that would otherwise already be out of the playoffs hopeful that their team can still make it. This is better for fan interest and attendance. I say no change.

Actually, just the opposite is true (at least sometimes).

Take this past season, for example. BC would not have been eliminated so early without the league's divided playoff structure. Their last few weeks would have had more meaning for the fans, which likely would have had positive effects on interest and attendance.

Instead, because of the divisions, we had 3 teams out of the running instead of 2.

Hank01

Get with the times this east and west is a hold over to different leagues , rules and train travel; it has no place in the modern CFL . That time is done and over with long time ago .

We have air travel now and it's a better system when the regular season counts for seeding and home field advantage . That's the way it should be and this geographical advantage looks bush league .

It's only 9 teams why make it smaller by playing the same teams umpteen times .That will attract nobody not watching now . The playoff system is a joke and it does not crown true champions .

The Argos had the worst points for and against in the six teams and should have been playing twice on the road before the cup .There championship should have a asterisk like any others helped by a geographical system that is not proper to the modern era .